HC upholds cancellation of elderly man’s property deed

The court asked the government to assess whether safeguards under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act were functioning effectively.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order cancelling a property release deed executed by a senior citizen in favour of his daughter, emphasising the need to protect elderly people from losing their financial security through property transactions.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while disposing of a petition filed by the daughter and her husband, urged the state government to improve awareness among senior citizens about the legal consequences of transferring property and relinquishing ownership rights.

The court asked the government to assess whether safeguards under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act were functioning effectively. It also suggested considering administrative guidelines for registration officials dealing with property transfers involving elderly people.

The bench said senior citizens should understand the implications of documents before signing them. Where a transfer is intended to secure maintenance or care, the obligation should be explicitly recorded. Registration officials should verify that signatories understand the documents and that statutory requirements are met.

The court held that authorities could cancel a property transfer under the senior citizens’ law even when the deed did not contain an express condition requiring the recipients to maintain the elderly parent.

The dispute arose after G. Byrappa of Hosanur in Shivamogga district transferred 1 acre and 30 guntas of land in Hunasekatte village to his daughter, Drakshayani alias Girija, and son-in-law, Chandru. He later approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, alleging that they had failed to maintain him and had secured the property through deception. The officer cancelled the release deed, prompting the couple to approach the High Court.

The petitioners claimed they had paid Rs 17.25 lakh for the land and argued that the absence of a maintenance condition prevented cancellation under Section 23 of the Act.

However, the court directed the Income Tax Department to investigate the alleged cash payment, citing questions over the receipts and the lack of convincing evidence regarding the source of funds.